← Back to context

Comment by SebastianKra

2 months ago

> Likewise, advertising on its own at its core is useful: there might be something that adds value to your life that someone else is trying to provide and the only missing link is that you don't know about it.

Journalists exist.

The best way to learn about new products is through influencers/reviewers/experts in their field. I'd even say its superior, which is why advertising companies ~sponsor~ bribe influencers to promote their products. Companies can also promote a product by sending it to reviewers.

So ads are not the only way to inform consumers, and the benefits IMO don't outweigh the cost.

> The best way to learn about new products is through influencers/reviewers/experts in their field. I'd even say its superior, which is why advertising companies ~sponsor~ bribe influencers to promote their products.

In the same sentence, you give a possible solution and the reason why it wouldn't work.

Ban ads and companies are going to pay more and more for sponsored content to the point you can't differentiate what is legit from what is not.

  • I'd expect the law to broadly define an ad as any message, where the author has a conflict of interest.

    This would also include down propaganda on social media.

    We could then work backwards to define exceptions such as politicians speaking in moderated debates, signage in shops, etc...

    Defining this correctly will be difficult, but that's the case with any law. GDPR was watered down, and I'm still glad it's there.

There are a very few areas where there are good reviewers. Sadly most "reviewers" just repeat marketing materials, read stats from the box, and talk about themselves.